Essay: Nuclear Technology, Why Hasn

Pages: 12 (3939 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 10  ·  Level: Master's  ·  Topic: Military  ·  Buy This Paper

¶ … nuclear technology, why hasn't nuclear proliferation been more widespread throughout Asia?

When talking about the overall nuclear proliferation and its lackluster spread in Asia as compared to the West, one cannot ignore the breach of U.S. In the 9/11 attacks. Behrens (2003) asserts that "the terrorist attacks of September 11 added the suddenly more realistic threat of an even more unimaginable assault with a nuclear explosive. While terrorists have not been ignored in nonproliferation efforts, particularly with regard to Russian nuclear materials, the major focus has been on preventing nation states from developing weapons capabilities. While many features of the nonproliferation regime, such as export controls and monitoring, are applicable to the terrorist threat, some shift in focus has been necessary" (Behrens, 2003).

Furthermore, researchers asserts that the international developed countries have structured departments that handle the nuclear proliferation programs to take the relevant steps for management of the nuclear programs. Behrens (2003) supports this in his study and writes that "numerous U.S. agencies have programs related to nuclear nonproliferation, but the major activities are carried out by the Departments of State, Defense, and Energy. DOE's program is part of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is responsible for the management of the U.S. nuclear weapons program" (Behrens, 2003).

Effectiveness of policy and strategic diplomacy

Perhaps, efficient diplomatic dialogues are the most apposite technique in controlling the abundance of NBCW- Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons. Archaic accounts have illustrated that if a diplomacy failure is experienced then the military power has also failed to present itself as an effectual assessment determinant against nuclear abundance. Contrarily, the military power has nearly always contradicted this stance; along with this it has been generating surging outcomes on the tread of abundance (Reiter, 1995; Bassey, 2011).

Duffin writes in his paper in 2008 that "with an explosion equivalent of about 20kT of TNT, the Trinity test was the first demonstration of a nuclear weapon. Conducted on July 16, 1945 in Alamogordo, NM this site is now a Registered National Historic Landmark. The concept and applicability of nuclear power was demonstrated on December 20, 1951 with the Experimental Breeder Reactor Number One (EBR-1) lit four light bulbs. This reactor is now a Registered National Historic Landmark, located near Arco, ID. From that moment forward it had been clearly demonstrated that nuclear energy has both peaceful and military applications and that the civilian and military fuel cycles can overlap. For the more than fifty years since the Atoms for Peace program, a key objective of nuclear policy has been to enable the wider peaceful use of nuclear energy while preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Volumes have been written on the impact of these two actions on the world by advocates and critics; pundits and practioners; politicians and technologists…The nations of the world have woven together a delicate balance of treaties, agreements, frameworks and handshakes that are representative of the timeframe in which they were constructed and how they have evolved in time. Collectively these vehicles attempt to keep political will, nuclear materials and technology in check" (Duffin, 2008).

There are many different diplomatic strategies. These can include the collaboration of various agencies for example the members of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Missile Technology Control Regime as well as members of other groups like International Atomic and Energy Agency (IAEA), members of Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG), and the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Other strategies can be related to provision of incentives to areas without the ambitions of NBCW, or to those areas which are willing to give up ambitions of NBCW. Incentives may also range from trade embargoes or agreements, economic sanctions and co-operation in technical regards which can be conferred on the flourishing states with the status of 'rogue state' for instance North Korea. Diplomacy can also include the verification process of International Atomic and Energy Agency (IAEA) to confirm compliance and non-compliance (Bassey, 2011).

Behrens (2003) further asserts that "Disposing of plutonium and highly enriched uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons, while preventing it from falling into the hands of terrorists or other proliferators, is another current focus of nonproliferation activities. In the longer term, the major question is fulfilling the pledge in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) by the nuclear weapons states, including the United States, to pursue complete nuclear disarmament, in the face of skepticism about the possibility, or even the wisdom, of achieving that goal" (Behrens, 2003).

Some success has been seen in non-proliferation diplomacy. According to Levite, NBCW has been discontinued in Brazil, Argentina and Libya due to diplomacy (Levite, 2002), and for countries such as Kazakhstan and Ukraine states have reduced their stockpiles of weapons and sanctioned the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). There have also been reports about the miserable predictions related to the growth of the NBCW in 1970s which failed to emerge. In The U.S. President J.F. Kennedy predicted in 1963 that till the year 1970, 10 countries will have nuclear power, and by the mid-1970 this number will grow to 15 and 20. President Johnson endorsed this prediction along with the Committee on Nuclear Proliferation (1965).

However, much agreement is there in the scholastic groups that the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the cause of slow growth of NBCW proliferation. In addition, many of the countries were less probable to abandon the present non-proliferation. This was done so as not to risk becoming sanctioned or disliked because they were already bound by the proliferation agreements as these countries were participants of the treaty (Levite, 2002).

The aforementioned discussion suggests that the NPT is the foundation for the regime of non-proliferation. This is because the first international consensual agreement that made a base of the monitoring and regulation of NBCW is NPT, and also laid a base on which different states can, under the Article 4 of NPT (1968), draw their own legality for NBCW proliferation condition. This NPT approves and states that the states have the right to develop and undertake nuclear technology research for peaceful commitments. The other absolute right of states granted by NPT is the acquisition of Chemical, Nuclear and Biological capabilities. Any potential proliferators can present its case for this right according to the rules of NPT for proliferation (Reiter, 2005).

In 1995, an attempt was made by the five nuclear states to influence the NPT extension in order to make negative security declarations and commitment to other non-nuclear states which was approved by the UN Security Council Resolution 984. This commitment was considered to be vague by the non-nuclear states who argued that this commitment does not represent any definite and clear commitment by the nuclear states. Furthermore, it was also said that this commitment did not allow the countries to use the nuclear weapons in any situation against them. Although it was vague, an interview with John Bolton, who is a former U.S. Under-Secretary of State for the Arms Control and International Security, said that U.S. is committed to its agreement of no-first-use, while simultaneously defending the notion of U.S. negative security assurance. In addition to this, this commitment was also defended by Bunn (1997) who said that these assurances can be challenged that they are least binding politically and even legally. This is due to the fact that explicitly these commitments were made so that the non-nuclear states extend the NPT in 1995. Even if the commitments were not intended to confer the non-nuclear states legal binding character, these states did extent the NPT on these commitments (Bunn, 1997).

The above proclamation advocates that the negative security assurances lies in its interpretation and inference. Since it is hard to estimate that there any assurances, it can be said that the negative security assurances can weaken the regime of non-proliferation and gives way to distrust between nuclear and non-nuclear states. Because the non-nuclear states are not explicitly assured about the no-first-use or no use of NBCW, it is difficult for them to trust the sincerity of the nuclear states towards the non-proliferation regime (Prosser, 2004).

The security umbrella of the U.S. does not protect many Asian and African countries. This provides inference to some level of positive security assurance, meaning assurance of help in nuclear attack situation, for the states who are participants of the NPT, but no expressed commitment or other agreements have been given by U.S. Or other nuclear countries to protect the non-nuclear countries in the situation of a nuclear attack. The absence of this commitment can cause failure in the success of the current regime of non-proliferation. This absence of commitment can also cause the lack of security needs that non-nuclear countries need, pushing them to acquire nuclear capabilities (Prosser, 2004).

A way to extend security assurance is by entering into agreements with regional states. For instance, security guarantee can be extended to African Union (AU) which is more strategically sensible instead of extending it to only South Africa. By taking such a step, the assurance is giving and binding to all the member states of AU.… [END OF PREVIEW]

Four Different Ordering Options:

?
Which Option Should I Choose?

1.  Buy the full, 12-page paper:  $28.88

or

2.  Buy + remove from all search engines
(Google, Yahoo, Bing) for 30 days:  $38.88

or

3.  Access all 175,000+ papers:  $41.97/mo

(Already a member?  Click to download the paper!)

or

4.  Let us write a NEW paper for you!

Ask Us to Write a New Paper
Most popular!

World War II Nuclear Technology Term Paper


Nuclear WMD a Real Threat A-Level Coursework


Nuclear Power the Pros and Cons Term Paper


Nuclear Power Thesis


Nuclear Power -- the Future of Electricity Essay


View 979 other related papers  >>

Cite This Essay:

APA Format

Nuclear Technology, Why Hasn.  (2011, March 30).  Retrieved May 20, 2019, from https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/nuclear-technology/1286735

MLA Format

"Nuclear Technology, Why Hasn."  30 March 2011.  Web.  20 May 2019. <https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/nuclear-technology/1286735>.

Chicago Format

"Nuclear Technology, Why Hasn."  Essaytown.com.  March 30, 2011.  Accessed May 20, 2019.
https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/nuclear-technology/1286735.